Re: as an anarchist, i'm pretty disappointed with guns nuts ...

On 8/14/2026 2:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/14/26 9:38 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/13/2026 8:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/13/26 1:52 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2026 4:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/13/26 10:15 AM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I'm not voting for anyone who thinks the wrong side won the Cold 
>>>>>> War or
>>>>>> cheers for the Intifada like it's the World Cup." - Bill Maher
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm not voting for anyone who doesn't think gun rights are 
>>>>> universal you stupid anti-freedom turd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How is it that you understand self-defense (which is the basis of 
>>>> gun rights) is a universal right but somehow /property/ does not 
>>>> rise to the same level?
>>>
>>> because they aren't the same thing, and do not have the same properties
>>>
>>> self-defense is inherently self-limiting to to oneself. unlike 
>>> property rights it does not expand arbitrarily. the unbounded 
>>> expansions of property rights, on the other hand, then can interfere 
>>> with the basic freedoms of others, whereas defense of one's actual 
>>> self does not
>>>
>>> nvm the fact that gun rights aren't even about self-defense like cons 
>>> endlessly bleat on about 🙄🙄🙄, that is best left to a legal/ 
>>> policing system. gun rights are fundamentally about democratizing / 
>>> common defense/ against tyranny (both internally and externally), not 
>>> "self- defense"
>>
>> Defending against a tyrannical government is just self defense.
> 
> except it's not /just/ self-defense because tyranny functions at the 
> collective level rather than just the interpersonal one.
> 
> i get that u don't acknowledge the existence of collective dynamics.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you even ever think about the reality that guns are in fact 
>>>> property?
>>>
>>> gun ownership is very much not zero-sum, unlike the kinds of property 
>>> ownership that can then interfere with the freedoms of others
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your belief system is a bundle of contradictions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> u don't have something worthy of being called "a belief system", as 
>>> it's not established upon principles that u actually uphold generally
>>>
>>
>> So you see guns as being a special kind of property.
>>
>> What if someone can't afford a gun? In that case it's pretty clear 
>> your ethics would require you to redistribute partial ownership of 
>> your gun to him. He can't afford to get one of his own so you need to 
>> share.
>>
>> You should be glad to do it.
>>
> 
> i do advocate for _free_ guns u moron, so yes i do think we should 
> actively train and arm the population (to some high percentage). and i 
> think we should do so on the taxpayers dime because it's advantageous 
> for the preservation of liberty, to have a distributed the common 
> defense against tyranny. we have than enough gun production to achieve this
 >
You are soaking in it.

There are an estimated 400 million to 500 million privately owned 
firearms in the United States. This means there are roughly 1.2 to 1.5 
guns for every person in the country, making the U.S. the only nation 
with more civilian-owned firearms than people.